Report on Governance Types and Ecosystem Management Characteristics CTMIUCN

8/14/2019 Report on Governance Types and Ecosystem Management Characteristics CTMIUCN

1/81

Project no: 028827

Project acronym: GEM-CON-BIO

Project title: Governance and Ecosystems Management for the CONservation of BIOdiversity

Instrument: STREP

Thematic Priority: 7 Citizens and Governance in a knowledge-based society

Deliverables:D 2.2 Report on governance typesD 3.2 Report on ecosystem management characteristics

Due date of deliverables: 31/6/2006Actual submission date: 17/10/2006

Start date of project: 1/2/2006 Duration: 24 months

Organisation name of lead contractors for this deliverables: CTM (D2.2) IUCN (D3.2)

Revision: final


2/81

GEM-CON-BIO Ecosystems and Governance

REVISION CONTROL

Deliverables numbers D 2.2 and D 3.2

Deliverables namesReport on governance types (D 2.2) andReport on ecosystem managementcharacteristics (D 3.2)

WPs numbers WP2 - WP3

WPs responsible CTM (WP2) IUCN(WP3)

EDITION DATE PAGES COMMENTARY AUTHOR OTHERCONTRIBUTORS

1 20/8/2006 60 Draft VersionV. Galaz T. Hahn

A. Terry All partners

2 7/9/2006 61 Draft Version V. Galaz T. Hahn A. Terry All partners

3 16/10/2006 81 Final Version V. Galaz T. Hahn A. Terry

All partners andinvited experts during

Stockholm meeting


3/81


GEM-CON-BIO Technical Report

Ecosystem Governance in Europe

Part A: Ecosystem Management in Europe

Part B: The Governance of Natural Resources

Part C: An Integrated Approach


4/81


Contents

Preface ................................................................................................... 6

PART A: Ecosystem Management in Europe ...................................................... 7

1. Introduction.......................................................................................... 8 1.1 Aims and Objectives of GEM-CON-BIO ........................................................8 1.2 Outline of the Report ............................................................................9

2. Biodiversity and Ecosystems in Europe .......................................................10 2. Biodiversity and Ecosystems in Europe .......................................................10

2.1 Considering ecosystems and their goods and services.................................... 10 2.2 The role of biodiversity within ecosystems ................................................ 12 2.3 Natural Resources .............................................................................. 15 2.4 Measuring Biodiversity......................................................................... 15 2.5 Biodiversity in Europe ......................................................................... 15 2.6 Major ecosystems in Europe .................................................................. 16

2.6.1 Europes landscapes ...................................................................... 16 2.6.2 Farmland ................................................................................... 18 2.6.3 Forests ...................................................................................... 18

2.6.4 Coastal and Marine Ecosystems......................................................... 19 2.6.5 Freshwater Ecosystems .................................................................. 20 2.7 Drivers of Ecosystem change ................................................................. 20

2.7.1 Main Direct Pressures on ecosystems .................................................. 22

PART B: The Governance of Natural Resources .................................................25

3. The Management and Governance of Natural Resources..................................26 3.1. The Use and Management of Natural Resources.......................................... 26

3.1.1 The ecosystem approach and sustainable use........................................ 27 3.1.2 Efforts at the global level ............................................................... 28 3.1.3 The Addis Ababa Principles.............................................................. 29 3.1.4 Efforts at the European Level........................................................... 29 3.1.5 Efforts at the local level ................................................................. 32

3.2 Ecosystem management regimes ............................................................ 32 3.2.1 Property rights ............................................................................ 34 3.2.2 Ecological knowledge and social learning............................................. 34 3.2.3 Type of collaboration among actors ................................................... 35 3.2.4 Policy Communities and Bridging Organizations ..................................... 36

3.3 Governance theory and concepts ............................................................ 36 3.3.1 Why is Governance Important?.......................................................... 37 3.3.2 How does GEM-CON-BIO define Governance?......................................... 37 3.3.3 What are the Linkages to Ecosystem Management? ................................. 38

3.4 Interlinked Challenges for Biodiversity, ECM and Governance Pressing ResearchNeeds 39


5/81


4.2.4 The PSR / DPSIR approach ............................................................... 46 4.2.5 The GEM-CON-BIO Framework .......................................................... 47

5. Implementing the Analysis Framework .......................................................51 5.1 Key Methodological Issues..................................................................... 51

5.1.1 Using the same framework systematically across cases ............................ 51 5.1.2 The Importance of Assessing Change in the Case Studies .......................... 52 5.1.3 The Need to Study both Biodiversity Governance Failure, and Success.......... 52 5.1.4 Increasing the Number of Observation/Cases ........................................ 53 5.1.5 Quantitative or Qualitative Analysis? .................................................. 54 5.1.6 Concluding Comments.................................................................... 54

5.2 Data sources..................................................................................... 55 5.2.1 Initial Conditions .......................................................................... 55 5.2.2 Governance Capacity..................................................................... 57 5.2.3 Societal Attributes........................................................................ 59 5.2.4 Natural Resource Management Objectives and Decision Making .................. 61 5.2.5 Governance Processes.................................................................... 62 5.2.6 Impacts ..................................................................................... 63 5.2.7 Change in the State of Biodiversity .................................................... 63 5.2.8 Evaluation .................................................................................. 63

Conclusions ............................................................................................. 64 Glossary ................................................................................................. 66 References.............................................................................................. 68 Annex 1: The Research Questions .................................................................75


6/81


Preface

This report represents the first technical deliverables from the GEM-CON-BIO project.Originally when the project was being developed two separate studies were foreseen.These studies would review the state of ecosystems in Europe and present the role of

governance in biodiversity conservation. However as the project has been implemented, ithas become clear that the innovative approach of GEM-CON-BIO is that it takes anintegrated approach to the role of governance and ecosystem management forbiodiversity. The project recognises that only through a study of the processes andinteractions involved in the management of our ecosystems can be hope to gain insightinto the future tools that will foster the sustainable use of natural resources. Thus withthis approach in mind the authors decided to combine their efforts. Andrew Terry fromthe World Conservation Union (IUCN) worked on the text concerning the state of Europeanecosystems, while Thomas Hahn and Victor Galaz both of Centre of Transdisciplinary

Environmental Research of Stockholm University carried out the review of governancestructures. The authors came together to develop the analytical framework presentedlater in the report. It is this integrated framework that is the key output of this report asit forms the basis for further study within the project. Therefore within this document wepresent combined deliverables D3.2 on ecosystem management and D2.2 on governance.


7/81


PART A: Ecosystem Management in Europe


8/81


1. Introduction

In Europe, possibly more than anywhere else, human societies have has altered the

landscapes and species that occupy them to such an extent that many of our biodiversityrich areas are reliant on some form of human management. In recent times our ability toextract natural resources or modify our ecosystems has increased exponentially and ishaving strongly deleterious effects on biodiversity and our future wellbeing (Schrter et al2005). In fact these two aspects of our living world biodiversity and human wellbeing -have become so closely intertwined that it is difficult to separate them. With fewexceptions, the landscapes we protect for their value in sustaining biodiversity requiresome form of management and are surrounded by intensively used areas. Coupled withthis is the fact that we now protect more of the European continent than ever before,

some 18% of the European Union is protected under Natura 2000 alone, and yet we stillwitness strong rates of species decline. Political targets have been established to put inplace the policies that will address this decline. Much of their focus is not on natureprotection legislation or activities, but rather it is focused on those sectors of naturalresource use and economic development which have greatest impact. It is against thisbackground that the GEM-CON-BIO project was developed with the view that only throughthe equitable and sustainable management of natural resources will it be possible tomaintain levels of biodiversity in Europe. We share the prevailing view of the globalcommunity that we must focus on the ecosystem level and then identify the services that

ecosystems provide. Only through the realistic valuation (in all senses of the term) ofecosystems will be able to achieve some form of sustainable development. We take theview that biodiversity underpins much of the ability of ecosystems to provide functionsand as such is a key component that warrants special attention. Thus throughout thisproject we study the interaction between the institutions and processes used to governour ecosystems and their resulting impacts on biodiversity. Can we truly manage ourecosystems in an equitable way to enhance our wellbeing and sustain biodiversity? It is afundamental question that this project will undertake to study.

1.1 Aims and Obj ect ives of GEM-CON-BIO

GEM-CON-BIO aims to improve the scientific and conceptual understanding of governanceof biodiversity and natural resources. It will do so by dealing with the following particularissues.

Examining the ownership structure of particular areas with importance in theconservation of biodiversity.

Examining the governance and management structures of such areas. Identifying and studying governance structures and examples at local, national,

regional, European, or global level. Assessing the impact that different governance structures have in the conservation of

biodiversity and sustainable development. Assessing the socio-economic factors that are involved in the management of the


9/81


1. Identify existing governance types in relation to conservation of biodiversity; discussits findings in a workshop with renowned experts in the field.

2. Identify critical ecosystem management characteristics; discuss its findings in aworkshop with renowned experts in the field.

3. Develop and finalise a governance matrix linking governance types and criticalecosystem management characteristics.

4. Identify and conduct research on a set of case studies (10-15 case studies) to show howdifferent governance approaches can be exercised in different ecosystems, using thegovernance matrix suggested above.

5. Compare the success and failure of different approaches in Europe as to whethergood governance practices lead to better outcomes.

6. Draw lessons from the US experience, especially in the context of market-basedinstruments for conservation.

1.2 Out li ne of t he Repor t

This report acts as the opening paper for the project. We discuss the history and legacy ofnatural resource management in Europe and we introduce the concepts and ideas that willshape the later analytical components of the project (Chapter 2). We start with conceptsassociated with ecosystems and the role of biodiversity in maintaining ecosystem

functions. Then we consider the processes that have led to the development of theecosystem approach for both biodiversity conservation and natural resource management.In Chapter 3 we focus on the institutions and processes (i.e. the governance) used tomanage natural resources and set out the general features of the analysis framework usedwithin this project. We define biodiversity governance as the way society at all scalesmanages its social, economic, and regulatory affairs with the aim to protect ecosystemfunction and biodiversity.

Developing a cogent analytical framework that is able to identify the key features of the

process and can identify the areas of study is a difficult task. Within this report werecognise that in addressing the complexity of ecosystems and the diversity of tools andinteractions involved in their management there has to be a focus. Our focus isgovernance and we discuss how the framework we propose compares with the leadinganalysis methodologies currently employed (Chapter 4). Finally in Chapter 5 we provide adetailed discussion of the components of the framework and the types of questions anddata that they should contain.


10/81


Biodiversity is seen as providing abasis for ecosystems to deliverservices.

Not all Natural Resources are

based on biodiversity, e.g.water.

For GEM-CON-BIO most interestis those natural resources thatare based on biodiversity

Figure 2.1. A graphic summary of the relationship between the concepts of ecosystems,biodiversity and natural resources. The figure aims to illustrate that the concepts are highlyrelated but retain key differences.

Ecosystems

Biodiversity

NaturalResources

2. Biodiversity and Ecosystems in Europe

In Chapter 2 of this report we provide a summary discussion of the main ecological

concepts addressed within this project. We discuss the inter-related topics of ecosystems,their goods and services, biodiversity and natural resources. Currently this terminology isusually equally by different specialist and stakeholder groups. Figure 2.1 provides asummary of how we view the relations between each of these topics. Biodiversity isidentified as providing the fundamental basis for the delivery of ecosystem goods andservices and natural resources is an anthropocentric term based on human values.

2.1 Consider ing ecosyst ems and t heir goods and servi ces

Ecosystems are a relatively recent concept for ecological study, gaining prominence within

the last fifty years. Here we use the CBD definition of an ecosystem as a dynamiccomplex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-livingenvironment interacting as a functional unit 1. It is the dynamic interactions, sometimestermed ecosystem processes, between the components of an ecosystem that define itsboundaries and these are irrespective of scale or location. Ecosystem processes occur at amultitude of scales and finding the actual boundaries between ecosystems can bedifficult Generally ecologists take a pragmatic approach that looks for assemblages of


11/81


a contradictory sense (De Groot et al 2002). Here we try to clearly state how ecosystemsare viewed within the workings of GEM-CON-BIO and these definitions will be usedthroughout the project.

Table 2.1: Trends in the human use of Ecosystem Services around 2000 (Source: MillenniumAssessment 2005).

Service Sub-category HumanUseEnhanced/Degraded

Provisioning ServicesFood Crops

Livestock Capture Fisheries

Aquaculture Wild Plant and animalproducts NA

Fibre Timber +/-Cotton, hemp, silk +/- +/-Wood fuel +/-

Genetic Resources Biochemical, natural medicinesand pharmaceuticals

Ornamental Resources NA NAFresh water

Regulating ServicesAir quality Climate regulation Global

Regional and local Water regulation +/-Erosion regulation Water purification and waste

treatment

Disease regulation +/-Pest regulation Pollination Natural hazard regulation

Cultural ServicesCultural Diversity NA NASpiritual and religious values Knowledge systems NA NAEducational values NA NAInspiration NA NAAesthetic values Social relations NA NASense of place NA NACultural heritage values NA NARecreation and tourism +/-


12/81


Generally the starting point for studying an ecosystem comes from its structure, theorganisation and composition of an ecosystems components, and the processes which arethe interactions between these components (Naeem et al 2002, De Groot et al 2002). Asexpected the structure and composition of an ecosystem are extremely important for itsfunction. There is considerable variation between the roles of species and functional units(e.g. groups of species performing similar functions) within an ecosystem, which can alsochange between habitats and ecosystems.

Much of the complexity of an ecosystem (its structure and processes) can be reduced tocontain a number of ecosystem functions; each of which represents the sum total of theprocesses within one particular system. A definition of an ecosystem function is thecapacity of natural processes and components to provide goods and services that satisfyhuman needs, directly or indirectly (De Groot 1992, De Groot et al 2002). It is importantto remember that the functions themselves do not need to convey direct or even indirectbenefits or value to humans. Sustained ecosystem processes and functions are necessaryfor the production of ecosystem services whether or not we value, or even understand,these processes and functions. Based on this definition, De Groot et al (2002) broadlygrouped these functions into four categories: 1) Regulation, 2) Habitat, 3) Production and4) Information.

Out of this group of ecosystem functions, we can identify a set which have observablebenefits to human society and these are termed ecosystem goods and services . In this casethe definition of what is a good or a service is anthropocentric and based on their value tohumans (De Groot et al 2002). The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005) developeda list of what it defined as Ecosystem Services which include the functions identified by DeGroot et al (2002), but focuses on their anthropogenic role (see Table 2.1). Within thisproject we concentrate on the role ecosystem goods and services, as being those elementsthat are most easily valued within a system of use of natural resources. It should also beremembered that different components of an ecosystem will perform different functions,especially when we consider biodiversity which underpins the delivery of most ecosystemservices.

Finally, when considering ecosystem goods and services, a distinction is often madebetween those that provide direct benefits such as the production of a raw material andthose that provide indirect benefits (MA Glossary, MA 2005). This distinction, whereas mayserve in some cases to allow the better differentiation of services in economic andvaluation models, is otherwise difficult to make with most services.

2.2 The role of biodiversit y wi t hin ecosyst ems Biodiversity represents the sum of variation in genes, species and ecosystems (MA 2005).This includes the variation found within species and also the interactions betweendifferent species and assemblages. As such biodiversity underpins the provision of allecosystem services (see Figure 2.2). Although most measures of biodiversity assess speciesrichness understanding the role of biodiversity requires data on trophic relations between


13/81


changes in the ecosystem dynamics suddenly supply the necessary conditions for thespecies to spread (e.g. Stockwell et al 2003).

Thus the key feature of biodiversity is the functional relationships between species withinan ecosystem. Although we have a good understanding of the role species play within anecosystem, for example the role of photosynthesis for primary production, we have only avery limited understanding of the functional significance of biodiversity, for example therole of grass diversity in supporting ecosystem productivity (Naeem et al 2002). In natureconservation terms we assume that biodiversity should be maximized to ensure thatecosystems can function, but there are numerous theories concerning the form thisrelationship takes (Naeem et al 2002). Conversely when looking at extinctions,considerable attention is placed on halting global extinction, however local extinction andfunctional extinction (the reduction of a species population to a point that it can no longerplay a functional role) receive far less attention, but are equally damaging to the provisionof ecosystem services (MA 2005b). Hence, if we are interested in how biodiversity andecosystem services sustain human wellbeing we need to broaden our interest in hot spotbiodiversity areas and also assess ecosystem processes in cold spots, i.e. in areas withrelatively small number of species of which few are endemic but which are crucial tohuman wellbeing (Ceballos et al. 2005).


14/81


such as nitrogen fixation. The loss of one of these species may be deemed as acceptableas other species can perform the same function and therefore there is redundancy in thesystem. Conversely there will be some species that have a key function within theecosystem and their loss will have highly deleterious effects. With greater redundancythere is a greater insurance that an ecosystem can function in the face of change. Thisbrings us to the concept of ecosystem resilience. Resilience in this context is defined asthe capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change soas to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks (Walkeret al 2004). As with many of the terms used within ecosystem studies, resilience has abroad definition. But it is one that is closely linked to our assessment of the role ofbiodiversity within ecosystems and the ability of ecosystems to cope with Human inducedimpacts (e.g. habitat destruction and fragmentation). It is important to note that withinan ecosystem, the capacity to buffer negative effects is not enough. The ecosystem mustbe able to reorganize after disturbance, adapt to the new situation, and sustain importantecosystem services. A non-resilient ecosystem facing disturbance will degrade or even flipinto less desirable states (Holling 2001). The importance of resilience needs to be furtherborne in mind when considering the value of biodiversity. Biodiversity is often valued forits components but in the true sense of its definition, the variety of all life, it is valuableits ability to support ecosystem resilience (MA 2005b)

Table 2.2: Definition of Natural Resources as found in the European Commission Impact Assessmentto the Thematic Strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources (COM (2005) 670 final)

Resource DefinitionRaw materials and biomass Including minerals (fossil energy carriers and metal

ores) and biomass. Fossil energy carriers, metal oresand other minerals (e.g. gypsum, china clay) are non-renewable in the sense that they cannot be replenishedwithin a human timeframe. Stocks are finite and arediminishing because of their use in human activities. Incontrast, biomass is in principle renewable within thehuman timeframe. It includes quickly renewable

resources, such as for example agricultural crops, andslowly renewable resources, such as timber. However,some of these resources used as rawmaterials can be exhausted if they are overexploited

Environmental media E.g. air, water and soil. These resources sustain life andproduce biological resources. In contrast with rawmaterials it is their declining quality that causesconcern. It is not a question of how much there is (with

the notable exception of soil), but what state they are in.

Flow resources E.g. wind, geothermal, tidal and solar energy. Theseresources cannot be depleted, but require otherresources to exploit them. For example, energy,materials and space are needed to build wind turbines orsolar cells


15/81


2.3 Nat ural Resources

All humans are directly or indirectly reliant on natural resources for survival. Natural

resources in their broadest sense refer to all the elements of the physical environmentthat are exploited by humans and hence are ascribed an economic value (monetary orcultural). It is possible to define natural resources in a number of ways, for examplewhether they are biotic or abiotic or by their renewal rate (renewable, semi-renewable ornon-renewable). In its strategy on the sustainable use of natural resources, the EuropeanCommission uses four categories (see table 2.2): raw materials and biomass,environmental media, flow resources and space (EC 2005). Within GEM-CON-BIO, we focuson the provision ecosystem goods and services and this will require the analysis ofdifferent natural resource types be they biotic or abiotic, renewable or non-renewable.

The project considers the goods and services that are derived (used and managed) frommajor resources in cultivated lands, forests and aquatic (marine and freshwater)ecosystems.

2.4 Measuri ng Biodiversi t y

As discussed above biodiversity plays a critical role in the ability of ecosystems to providegoods and services to humans. Measuring the state of biodiversity is extremely complexand as such there are no real measures of biodiversity currently in use. Instead we use anumber of indicators of elements of biodiversity that highlight changes to biodiversity overtime. As we increasingly focus on the goods and services that ecosystems provide, andconsequently the ability of biodiversity to sustain them we must be careful in the choiceof proxy indicators (e.g. hot spot areas and red listed species versus ecosystem processesin cold spot areas).

When assessing biodiversity we can focus on three major levels: genetic, species andecosystem. Monitoring programmes almost completely focus on the species level, primarilyusing species richness (i.e. the number of different species in an area) and thenabundance (the number of each species in an area). This approach only allows us to seeone aspect of biodiversity which are the elements that make up ecosystems. There arealso several issues associated with the use of species, primarily that it is a fairly arbitraryconcept that is used rigidly by conservation biologists and fairly liberally by taxonomists(Isaac et al 2004). Species richness, although it correlates with ecosystem health, does notyield information on genetic diversity, trophic relationships or functional traits (MA2005b).

In Europe, there is a relatively rich source of biodiversity monitoring data with allcountries managing species monitoring schemes. Furthermore through the adoption ofindicators at the global level through the CBD and then at the pan-European and EU level,greater effort and resources are being placed in the developed of a series of state andtrend indicators for elements of biodiversity (the Streamlining European 2010 BiodiversityIndicators (SEBI2010) process). The best known data is undoubtedly from the long termmonitoring of bird species (e.g. Gregory et al 2002, Birdlife International 2004). Some


16/81


richness in Northern Europe. The most biodiversity rich areas are to be found in themountainous regions and the Mediterranean basin; these areas (the Caucasus and theMediterranean) provide Europes two biodiversity hotspots 3.

Europe is the second most densely populated continent in world (32 people/km2), andproduces 27% of the worlds GDP (UN 2001). Population density decreases across Europe -ranging from 166 people/km2 in Western Europe to 16 people/km2 in Eastern Europe. As aresult, the state of biodiversity in Europe is characterised by the degree of associationbetween people and nature. Generally, moving from Western to Eastern Europe and theCommonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Europes habitats have received lessmodification or conversion. Habitats in Western Europe are largely framed within anetwork of farmed and urbanised landscapes, however the CIS contains vast areas ofwilderness (EEA 2003).

Europe contains around 8.5% of all the globally threatened vertebrate species (37% ofwhich are mammals, 15% birds, 4% amphibians, 10% reptiles and 34% freshwater fish) 4. It ismore difficult to accurately gauge the level of threat faced by plant taxa, but Europecontains approximately 2.5% of all globally threatened species (excluding the Caucasus,EEA 2003).

2.6 Maj or ecosystems in Europe

2.6.1 Europes landscapes

With the introduction of the ecosystem level focus and the increased attention put onconnectivity, our focus has shifted from habitats to landscapes. Using the termlandscape is already an anthropomorphism as the notion includes not only the biologicalfunctions of the ecosystem, but also the services it provides to humans (EEA 2005). A viewof Europes landscapes can be seen in Figure 2.3. Here it is possible to see that the vastmajority of Europes landscapes have been modified by humans for some sort of resourceproduction; less than one fifth is free from some form of management (EEA 2005). Thesechanges to the landscape have created many of Europes habitats and the opening offorested areas also presented opportunities for species to expand and colonise new areas.Now much of the continents biodiversity is found on semi-natural grasslands, whichrequire continuous extensive management to sustain populations. Many of the mostimportant semi-natural areas are found in South Eastern Europe, including areas such aspuszta and steppe grasslands and alpine meadows (EEA 2005).

The landscape perspective offers an important concept for GEM-CON-BIO. It is broaderthan the ecosystem, with some definitions of the landscape as containing two or moreecosystems (Sanderson & Harris 2000). It also contains a mixture of social and ecologicalperspectives as the structure, form and ability of a landscape is shaped by the underlyingecological conditions and the decisions of policy-makers and land users. Protecting thesel d il l d i l hi d h h d l i l i


17/81


a summary review of some of Europes dominant land use types (farmland, forestry andfreshwater ecosystems).


18/81


2.6.2 Farmland

The twentieth century witnessed the mass transformation of natural areas into agricultureand the modernisation of traditional agricultural practices into intensified production. Thisprocess was at the heart of the EUs Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) since its inception.Since the 1950s the expansion of arable land in Europe has largely stabilized andincreased production has been achieved through intensification (MA 2005b). Currentlyarable land and grasslands under some form of management cover about 45% of Europeand are estimated to contain around 50% of the species (EEA 2005). Therefore they arevery important for biodiversity. At the same time there are some key conservation issuessuch as intensification of farming in the new EU Member States and the abandonment ofland in rural areas where intensification is not profitable, which are threatening the statusof species on farmland. Current changes to agricultural lands are a complex mix ofconversion of marginal lands, conversion of arable land to pasture, and abandonment(either with afforestation or without). These are all largely the responses of farmers tochanging economic and market conditions (EEA 2005), partly in response to changes in theorientation of the CAP.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) has undertaken considerable work on high naturevalue farmland which is estimated to cover between 15-25% of the landscape. Due toincreasing specialization in breeding, global homogenization and intensification there has

been a considerable reduction in the genetic diversity of domestic plants and animals. Inmany cases these species are better adapted to utilizing marginal conditions thancurrently favoured breeds.

2.6.3 Forests

Forests cover approximately 30% of Europe, and represent an important natural resourcein social, economic and ecological terms and contain a major reservoir of European

biodiversity. Forest areas also form large parts of the European protected area networkand constitute stepping-stones and corridors for connectivity between differentprotected areas. Since the 1970s, forested areas have been slowly growing, which isprimarily due to afforestation (either natural or artificial) on abandoned farmland (EEA2005). However old growth forests, which are important in terms of biodiversity, continueto decline. About three quarters of these forested areas are considered by the UNECE/FAO(2000) to be undisturbed, however the vast majority are within the Russian Federation.Excluding the main boreal forest regions (Russian Federation, Sweden, Finland andNorway), only 1% of the remaining forest can be categorised as undisturbed (EEA 2003).Forest condition is generally measured through the condition of the crowns of trees.Crown condition decreased rapidly in the 1970s and 1980s through atmospheric pollution,e.g. sulphur dioxide emission. However as the pressure from acidification has decreased inrecent years, there is increasing data to suggest that climate change will pose a significantthreat to forests in the future.

F i f i i l di h i f h h i l


19/81


management, conservation and utilisation of forests. Instead Europes forests aregoverned by many different initiatives that act at local, national and international levels.Currently the EU has a number of strategies, action plans and directives used to manageits forest resources. This in part reflects the different heritage of forest management

practices in each country and the differing economic and environmental pressures faced.However such differences lead to difficulties in the generation of inventory statistics andthe monitoring and reporting of changes to forest ecosystems (EEA 2003).

2.6.4 Coastal and Marine Ecosystems

Coastal and marine ecosystems provide important services that people have relied on formillennia. In Europe they provide some of the most productive and yet threatenedecosystems (EEA 2006). This change is also continuing unabated; between 1990 and 2000,the EU lost more coastal wetland than during previous decades primarily due toinfrastructure development (EEA 2006). The most significant threats come from industrialand recreational uses of coastal areas that concentrate in the areas of high biodiversitysuch as the Mediterranean Sea. Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) is beingpromoted to combat this destruction of habitats in coastal areas. This approach can beviewed as an equivalent of ecosystem management for coastal areas. It recognises threekey principles; the importance of the connection between marine and terrestrialprocesses, the role of human activities along the coast and the integration of differentsectors and stakeholders in the management of coastal areas.

With respect to Marine ecosystems, the UN identifies 13 large marine ecosystems in thepan-European region; of which the most heavily used are the Baltic Sea, North Sea,Atlantic Ocean (European parts), Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea. Each of theseecosystems has specific features that influence the extent of the impacts they face, forexample the shallow Baltic Sea has a low salinity and long renewal time, whereas theMediterranean is rich in oxygen but poor in nutrients. The Baltic Sea is one of the mostthreatened regional seas suffering from eutrophication, pollution and invasion of alienspecies. All the regional seas suffer from over-exploitation of fish stocks.

Fishery landings in the EU have been decreasing since the 1990s from 9.1 million tonnesin 1995 to 7.2 million tonnes in 2003 5. The majority of the capture is taken by fourcountries (UK, Spain, Denmark and France). Outside of the EU the major users are Norwayand the Russian Federation. However, marine fisheries remain a vitally importanteconomic asset. In 2002, 93 million tonnes of fish were caught globally with a value of 78billion USD(FAO 2004). Aquaculture is also increasing rapidly and has become the fastestgrowing food production sector; growing faster than the global population indicating

increasing resource demands(FAO 2004). However this growth is not so strong in Europewhere production has remained relatively stable, with the exception of the RussianFederation which is one of the top 10 rapidly developing countries in terms of aquacultureproduction.

Both the over-harvesting of marine species and the capture methods used have led todramatic declines. The State of the Worlds Fisheries Report from 2002 stated that An


20/81


size, evidence from the cod fisheries from the East coast of Canada show that thepopulations may not recover from such depletion.

2.6.5 Freshwater Ecosystems

Europe has a rich network of rivers, waterways and wetlands which are an important storeof biodiversity. They are also vitally important for human well-being and economicdevelopment. Europes wetlands have been significantly altered in recent history and fewremain in a natural state (EEA 2005). Europe has approximately 1.2 million kilometres ofrivers and they together with their associate habitats are extremely important forbiodiversity. Most inland waterways have been modified to control water flow often forirrigation and wetlands have been drained to create agricultural land. In recent yearspollution has been a major impact on aquatic habitats, with the introduction of nitratesand other chemicals into the water. Considerable effort has been spent on reducing suchpollutions and now there are marked increases in water quality (EEA 2005).

There are approximately 560 species of freshwater (FW) fish in Europe. Although there hasbeen considerable work on freshwater species, there is little coordinated monitoringactivity. Therefore it has been difficult to gain an overview of the state of Europeanspecies. An assessment that will soon be released indicates that 18 species are nowextinct and a further 202 (36%) are threatened (M. Kottelat pers. comm.). Recently aregional assessment was made for Mediterranean FW Fish by IUCN, which shows that out of253 endemic species assessed 56% are threatened, of which 18% Critical, 18% Endangeredand 20% Vulnerable, further highlighting the plight of these species 6(Smith and Darwall2006).

2.7 Dr iver s of Ecosyst em change

It is clear that Europes ecosystems and the species they contain are under considerablepressure. Ecosystems have been converted or modified for human use more now than atany time in Human history (MA 2005b). In its analysis, the MA considers indirect and directdrivers of change, which at the European level (or within the DPSIR framework) would beconsidered drivers and pressures. The principle anthropocentric drivers in Europe areeconomic growth and development. Given the pervasive nature of its impacts, climatechange can be considered as a key driver, although the anthropogenic role in exacerbatingclimate change is due to economic development. Understanding the relationship betweendrivers and pressures is extremely complex as there is rarely a simple linear relationship

with the resulting impacts on ecosystem services. Although there are key drivers that actat all levels, the impacts and magnitude of these drivers comes from their interaction withlocal conditions. Furthermore these drivers have impacts that are expressed over differenttime periods and at different organisational levels. Figure 2.4 illustrates some of the keydrivers and their interactions identified within the MA sub-global assessment for Portugal.

Th id d l i h f l i E h l d b i l


21/81


Furthermore as life expectancy increases in Europe so does the relative demand onresources. This pressure of increased development continues to exert an ever increasingpressure on natural resources both through extraction and habitat modification (EEA2005b). Currently within the European Union, the Lisbon Strategy is focussed on the

creation of jobs and economic growth at the expense of its other objective ofsustainability. Global economic development has seen the gap between developed anddeveloping countries become broader, even as the pace of economic development indeveloping countries is faster than that of the industrialised countries. Considerable workremains to be done on the connections between ecosystem services and continuingeconomic development. Part of this needs to include more inclusive valuation methods tobetter integrate ecosystems into national or regional economic planning. For example theMA showed that a broader valuation of the ecosystem services provided by particularhabitats meant that they had a greater economic value than being converted toproduction alone (MA 2005). The supposition from this is that economic growth may berapid and immediate with the conversion of habitats to production or infrastructure, butlonger term total economic value will suffer.

Figure 2.4: the feedback and interactions between drivers in the MA sub-global assessmentfor Portugal (MA 2005b).

European countries have become increasing efficient in their extraction and use of naturalresources, primarily through technological development. This has in some cases reducedthe pressure on resources, but in others it has been offset by an increased demand for theresources. As a greater proportion of the economy shifts from direct resource useindustries (e.g. extraction) to both manufacturing and services, the pressure on resourcescan be further reduced. European economies have witnessed a relative decoupling of


22/81


2.7.1 Main Direct Pressures on ecosystems

The MA identified five key drivers resulting in the decline in the provision of keyecosystem services (see Figure 2.5): habitat change, climate change, invasive species,over-exploitation and pollution. In Europe we view this slightly differently. For thepurpose of this project we view climate change as a main driver of change and do notgroup it with the more proximate pressures, this is primarily an issue of scale and theappropriate level of response. We also look at habitat change in more detail, expressingthe distinction between habitat destruction, fragmentation and conversion.

Figure 2.5. The direct drivers of global ecosystem change (MA 2005)


23/81


quality. As mentioned above, the majority of Europes habitat conversion has taken placein historic times, leading to the mosaic of semi-natural landscapes we know today.

The modification of habitats is treated as the leading cause of biodiversity loss. The MA

identified that temperate grasslands, temperate broadleaf forests, and Mediterranean for-ests each experienced 55% or more conversion prior to 1950 (MA 2005b). There isconsiderable variation in the extent to which different habitats have been modified andthe rate of change of that modification. Throughout the twentieth century, temperategrasslands have lost much of their extent (70% before 1950 and 15.6% afterwards),whereas Mediterranean forests had lost the majority of their range by 1950 and have onlywitnessed a small decline since (MA 2005b). This is most likely to due to most of theuseable land being converted to agriculture, with only marginal areas remaining.

Current important pressures that are changing Europes habitats are the growth of thetourism industry (especially on coastal ecosystems), continued urbanisation and thedevelopment of transport networks (EEA 2005). In the 1990s the dominant form of landcover change was urbanisation, largely at the expense of agricultural and natural areas(EEA 2005). As urbanisation continues, most development is in suburban areas which tendto contain more green areas, which can be important for biodiversity. However due toreduced prices for agricultural land, considerable development is occurring outside citiesand principle urban areas, and in rural areas. This will have important impacts on naturalecosystems. At present these changes have been most strongly expressed in WesternEurope, however the indications are that very similar processes will occur in the new EUMember States and South Eastern European countries in the near future. These areas stillcontain Europes large stores of biodiversity.

Invasive species

Increasing global trade and the transport of goods and people has enabled societies tobenefit from the unprecedented movement and establishment of species around theworld. Many industries and consumers are entirely dependent on raw materials that arenative to distant parts of the world. Within the European Community the free movementof goods and people are fundamental principles, and with the establishment of the singlemarket in 1992, the only controls to movement are found at the EUs external borders.With the recent expansion of the EU to contain 25 countries this internal market hasgrown to incorporate an area of 3.9 million km 2. Furthermore the development of tradeagreements between the EU and other organisations and regions, such as the Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area, further enhances the ease with which goods aretransported.

This movement of goods and people, although providing considerable opportunities forsocietal enrichment, has also enhanced the intentional and unintentional movement ofspecies. In many cases these species have, and continue to have, a negative impact onlocal ecosystems, economies, human health and welfare. It is now a considerablechallenge to identify these species, and minimise their impacts whilst still promotingcontinued sustainable economic and societal development.


24/81


delivering ecosystem functions. Although all ecosystems are able to open to invasion,particularly vulnerable ecosystems include those that are isolated (e.g. islands) or thosethat are heavily disturbed either through natural or more likely anthropogenic factors.Therefore ecosystems associated with human resource use (e.g. forests and grasslands)

are also vulnerable. In Europe after island ecosystems, inland water bodies are the mostwidely impacted ecosystems.

Climate change

It is clear from a multitude of data sources that average global temperatures are currentlyrising faster than at any time in modern human history, and in Europe they have risenmore than the global average (EEA 2005). The effects of climate change are beingwitnessed across Europe as droughts increase, extreme weather events become morecommon and snowfall decreases. The main cause of this is now identified with a highdegree of certainty as the increased release of so called greenhouse gases, principallyCO2, into the atmosphere. These gases remain in the atmosphere for approximately acentury before being assimilated into marine and terrestrial ecosystems.

Our understanding of the complex relationships between Carbon stores in the atmosphereand within ecosystems is still in its infancy and studies are identifying how ecosystemsrespond to climate change. It is clear though that climate change will become one of thekey driving forces behind ecosystem change in coming years. In general increasingtemperatures have increased plant growing periods and therefore plant productivity.However in the Mediterranean, where temperature increases are the strongest, this hasresulted in more forest fires and droughts (EEA 2005). Changing temperatures are changingthe distributions of plant and animal species, and already it is possible to measuredifferences in bird migration times and reproductive behaviour (Stenseth et al 2002, Visser& Both 2005). Those species that are unable to adapt to these changes (e.g. range limitedspecies) will be put under severe pressure. Studies are showing that as populations ofspecies that are mistiming their migratory and reproductive behaviour with respect tochanging climates are experience severe populations declines (Both et al 2006). The twolatitudinal extremes of Europe, the Arctic and the Mediterranean, have been identified asthe most vulnerable and ecosystems and human well-being is already being impacted inboth. Coastal zones are also likely to undergo changes as increased water levels,phytoplankton growth and more sever storms will change their ecology (EEA 2005).

Carbon sinks such as forests and soil represent an important tool that could assist effortsto control CO2 emission, however research indicates that soils may be releasing far moreCarbon than previously thought (Bellamy et al 2005) and that forests may also releasemore carbon once temperatures increase above a threshold level. Currently there isconsiderable interest in the development of alternative fuel sources to offset theemissions from fossil fuels. However the growing of bioenergy crops raises a number ofconcerns for biodiversity conservation and the significant amount of land required to meettargets for bioenergy fuels threatens to dramatically increase the homogenisation oflandscapes. It is also further clear that the combined effects of climate change andhabitat fragmentation from anthropogenic activities will also limit the ability of species to


25/81


PART B: The Governance of Natural Resources


26/81


3. The Management and Governance of Natural Resources

Ecosystem management (ECM) integrates scientific knowledge of ecological relationshipswithin a complex socio-political and values framework toward the general goal ofprotecting native ecosystem integrity over the long term (Grumbine 1994). To analyzethe management of ecosystems, GEM-CON-BIO addresses several issues including propertyrights (ownership and management regimes), management objectives, type of knowledgeused in management, and type of collaboration among actors. To analyze governance , weaddress general governance capacity at national level, institutional arrangements thatenable multi-level governance, and societal attributes including social capital and policynetworks. Indeed, management and governance are intertwined and most of the issuesmentioned above have both a management component (how to manage ecosystems) and agovernance component (the institutional framework governing management activities).For instance, advocating an adaptive ecosystem approach, Boyle et al. (2001) suggest atriad of activities, where governance is the process of resolving tradeoffs and providing avision and direction for sustainability, management is the operationalization of this vision,and monitoring provides feedback and synthesizes the observations to a narrative of howthe situation has emerged and might unfold in the future.

In this chapter we discuss these issues and how they are inter-connected and linked toconservation of biodiversity.

3.1. The Use and Management of Nat ural Resources

Natural Resource Management (NRM) was developed in response to the rapid developmentand expansion of countries in the nineteenth and early twentieth century. In the US,people were moving west and irrevocably changing the landscapes and species (e.g.through the removal of bison and deforestation). In Europe the ever expanding need for

natural resources to fuel post-industrial development at home and expansion abroad sawthe dramatic decline of forests and wetland resources. At the time, the prevailing outlookwas strictly utilitarian, and management aimed to ensure that sufficient resourcesremained to supply our expanding needs (Meffe et al 2002). The end of the Second WorldWar, witnessed another rapid increase in the demand for natural resources. Again in theUS, post-war development prospered from and supported a strong economy as peoplemoved away from rural areas to cities and suburbs (Meffe et al 2002). In Europe, thedestruction of the war placed large burdens on the economies of the countries to supplybasic functions to their populations such as the provision of food. These pressures

witnessed some of the greatest changes to landscapes and the rise of industrialised foodand fibre production.

By the seventies people started to notice the impacts of such intense resource use onspecies and ecosystems and there was a rapid development of legislation to protectspecies. Natural resource managers were also being required to take into account an ever

f f l d l l l d l ( l &

GEM CON BIO E t d G


27/81


3.1.1 The ecosystem approach and sustainable use

The ecosystem approach to management brought many important advantages including areliance on science-based knowledge for policy development and planning (Lamont 2006,Kessler & Thomas 2006). Building on ecosystem functioning, the ecosystem approach (orEcosystem Management), provides a framework for the integrated management of aquaticand terrestrial resources. At the basis there is the goal of maintaining the long termecological integrity of an area. Management objectives and decision-making processesthen build on the scientific understanding of this integrity to combine both ecological andsocietal requirements (i.e. the needs of stakeholders). Table 3.1 shows the set ofprinciples by which the Ecosystem Approach should be implemented. This approach andthe guiding principles were endorsed by the Fifth Conference of Parties to the CBD in 2000and have become the primary framework of activities implemented within the Convention.

This shift in the objectives of natural resource management has brought it much closer toconservation biology, in fact under the present paradigm of ensuring the future protectionof ecosystems and their ability provide goods and services, there is little to chooseb h d l ( l & h 00 ) f h l l f

Table 3.1: Principles of the Ecosystem Approach

1. The objectives of management of land, water and living resources are a matter of societal choices.

2. Management should be decentralized to the lowest appropriate level.

3. Ecosystem managers should consider the effects (actual or potential) of their activities on adjacent and

other ecosystems.

4. Recognizing potential gains from management, there is usually a need to understand and manage theecosystem in an economic context. Any such ecosystem-management programme should:

a) Reduce those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity;

b) Align incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use;

c) Internalize costs and benefits in the given ecosystem to the extent feasible.

5. Conservation of ecosystem structure and functioning, in order to maintain ecosystem services, should be a

priority target of the ecosystem approach.

6. Ecosystems must be managed within the limits of their functioning.

7. The Ecosystem Approach should be undertaken at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales.

8. Recognizing the varying temporal scales and lag-effects that characterize ecosystem processes, objectives

for ecosystem management should be set for the long term.

9. Management must recognize that change is inevitable.

10. The Ecosystem Approach should seek the appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation

and use of biological diversity.

11. The Ecosystem Approach should consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and

indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices.

12. The Ecosystem Approach should involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines.

GEM CON BIO Ecosystems and Governance


28/81


network of national and sub-national boundaries this poses a significant issue.Furthermore for ecosystem management to be effective, it must successfully translatescientific approaches and solutions into social and political ones (Lamont 2006). To datework on the implementation of the ecosystem approach has shown that for it to be

successful, the four key areas of the approach must be incorporated; collaborativegovernance, scientific foundation, integrated planning and adaptive management (Lamont2006). The reliance on aspects of collaboration, integration and adaptation also mean thatconcepts of good governance are critical to the successful implementation of theecosystem approach.

Table 3.2: Characteristics of traditional and ecosystem management approaches (Redrawn fromLamont 2006).

3.1.2 Efforts at the global level

At the same time that the disciplines of Natural Resource Management were going throughtheir period of paradigm shift towards the ecosystem perspective, there were concertedefforts at the international level within the conservation movement to provide guidelineson the use of resource and, importantly, the equitable sharing of costs and benefits.Although many of concepts associated with ecosystem management were being developedin developed countries such as the USA the rapid extraction of natural resources from

Characteristic Traditional approach Ecosystem approach Benefits of EAManagementStructure

Isolationist Horizontal/inclusive More holistic

Managementobjectives

Single issue focused Ecosystem focused Reduces chanceof cumulativeeffects andopposingobjectives

Over-archingobjective

Economic/environmental trade-offs

Maintainingecosystem integrity

More sciencefocusseddecisions

Managementapproach

One size fits all Place specific Objectivesrelevant toparticularsystems

Stakeholderengagement

Limited consultation Extensivecollaboration

Transparentdecisions, moresupport forstakeholders

Decision-making

process

Linear, top down Integrative (top

down and bottom up)

Better

integration ofmultiple viewsFollow-up Limited Adaptive

managementIncreasedopportunity tolearn fromexperience



29/81


needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meettheir own needs (UN 1987).

The Summit on Environment and Development which took place in Rio de Janeiro in 1992

and gave birth to the Convention on Biological Diversity was a direct response to theBrundtland Report. At its core, the CBD has three goals of protecting biodiversity, ensuringits sustainable use and the promoting equitable sharing of costs and benefits arising fromthe utilisation of genetic resources. The CBD has become the single most important globalconvention affecting the protection of biodiversity and the governance of natural resourcemanagement.

Since its ratification, the CBD has gone a long way to solidifying and adopting many of theconcepts that were being developed in the last three decades. The 2004 Seventh

Conference of Parties saw the adoption of the Ecosystem Approach (CBD VII.11) and alsothe adoption of the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use ofBiodiversity (CBD VII.12).

3.1.3 The Addis Ababa Principles

The sustainable use of natural resources is a central pillar of the CDB, and considerablework over several years resulted in the adoption of a set of principles and guidelines tosupport stakeholders in the use of biodiversity. The so-called Addis Ababa Principles andGuidelines (AAPG), aim to apply to all stakeholders at all organisational levels. Althoughthey are also supposed to apply to all forms of natural resource use, the AAPG do not fullydeal with the use of agricultural biodiversity. The principles are very broad and emphasisethe importance of coordinated legal and policy frameworks at all organisational levels, theparticipation of local communities (including the devolution of management to theappropriate level) and the equitable sharing of costs and benefits. As with sustainabledevelopment principles and the ecosystem approach, the AAPG call for the empowermentof local users, awareness-raising, education and transparency in decision makingprocesses. The key role of the AAPG is to empower local users within resourcemanagement frameworks to not only give them legitimacy and a voice in the process, butto also ensure their responsibility as the ones utilising the resource.

3.1.4 Efforts at the European Level

Policy

Unlike other inter-governmental organisations, the European Union (EU) has strongregulatory powers, being able to adopt legislation that is binding for Member States. TheEU is a Treaty-based organisation, and the EU institutions can only act if the Treaties givethem powers to do so. Although European environmental policy got underway before 1987,based on parts of the existing Treaty, the 1987 Single European Act for the first timeestablished an explicit legal basis for the Communitys environmental policy, including

i i f t ti



30/81

GEM CON BIO Ecosystems and Governance

From the initial 1987 Treaty, one of the main ways of the supporting the environment asthrough the integration of environmental considerations into existing or future policies. Ingeneral, and as with the Member States, the EU has faced the fundamental trade-off ofhaving to develop policies that foster economic development and harmonisation across a

diverse range of countries while at the same time safe-guarding the sustainable use of itsnatural resources. This trade-off has been more or less well managed within the differentpolicy sectors, for example pollution issues such as sulphur dioxide emissions have beendealt with successfully, but the environmental components of the Common Agriculture andFisheries Policies (CAP, CFP) have been disastrous.

The current dominating political agenda for the EU is the so-called Lisbon Strategy with itscore goal of making the EU the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economyin the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and

greater social cohesion. This was to be achieved through increases in access to labourmarkets for more jobs, more efficiency in European bureaucracy and more investment inresearch and development. The progress being made in implementing the Lisbon Strategywas reviewed in 2004 and found that little progress had been made in the five years sinceits launch (EC 2004). Within the original strategy, development was designed to beenvironmentally sustainable with the aim of decoupling growth from resource use and inthe speech of policy-makers, developing win-win situations through innovations inefficiency, pollution reduction and lower resource use (EC 2004). As with other sustainabledevelopment agendas, the Lisbon process has the potential for being very supportive to

environmental protection and the sustainable use of resources. However in practice suchconsiderations fall low on the agendas of Member States which try to maximise theiropportunities for direct economic development (in terms of infrastructure and jobs).

Along side the Lisbon Strategy, is the EUs Sustainable Development Strategy, adopted in2001 in Gothenburg. Within this framework, the EU adopted its 6 th Environmental ActionProgramme (6EAP), which sets out the activities to be undertaken within the EU between2002 and 2012 for the environment. It was through the 6 th EAP that the 2010 target to haltthe loss of biodiversity within the EU was adopted. Contrary to previous EAPs this did not

use time defined targets and objectives; instead it developed a series of seven ThematicStrategies. These strategies quickly became bogged down in review and consultationprocesses, especially as their requirements were identified as restricting the economicdevelopment of Member States. Currently five of the seven thematic strategies have beenadopted.

Already before the SDS, and in response to its commitments to the CBD, the EU adoptedits Biodiversity Strategy which contained four action plans for the sustainable use ofnatural resources, agriculture, fisheries and economic cooperation. Most recently these

documents went through an extensive stakeholder consultation and review which resultedin a conference in Malahide, Ireland in 2004 and a Communication from the EuropeanCommission on Biodiversity which was finally adopted in 2006. This process, which hasbeen long and drawn out, has finally delivered a road map containing time definedtargets and goals for action to halt biodiversity loss at the European level. As expected itis an ambitious document, with targets that will be difficult to meet. However it has



31/81

y

Community Law and RegulationsThere are several important pieces of legislation passed by the EU for the environment,especially those that relate to the use of Environmental Impact Assessments, which is arequirement for all major development projects. Here we focus on the two pieces of

Community legislation for nature conservation, the 1978 Birds and 1992 HabitatsDirectives and the major natural resource use regulations the Common Agricultural Policyand Common Fisheries Policy.

The Birds and Habitats Directives provide the core of the EUs nature conservationlegislation. When the Birds Directive was implemented it was a highly innovative piece oflegislation and set standards for bird protection across Europe. The Directives identifyspecies and habitats of European importance and state that they must be protected intheir wild state (Birds Directive) or to a favourable conservation status (Habitats

Directive), both terms emphasising the long term survival of populations. The Directivesrequired Member States to identify areas within the countries that would protect thespecies and to protect them under national law. This network of protected areas becameNatura 2000.

As of June 2006, the Natura 2000 network comprises 20,582 sites under the HabitatsDirective, including 1,250 marine sites (12% of the area of the European Union), and 4,317sites under the Birds Directive, including 459 marine sites (9% of the area of the EuropeanUnion). The process of implementing the Nature Directives gives valuable insight into the

process of governing natural resources and biodiversity conservation. The Directivesrecognised the importance of managed habitats and therefore allowed the continued useand exploitation of sites within limits. However implementation in the former EU-15Member States was extremely difficult with considerable resistance met at all levels,particularly from landowners and users. Invariably these problems stemmed from the lackof due communication between Member States and the stakeholders, with landownersoften being unaware of them becoming a Natura 2000 site! Furthermore a lack ofunderstanding of the activities possible within Natura 2000 led to losses of land value andmore resistance. When 10 new countries joined the EU in 2004, the process was started

again. Some lessons were learned from the EU-15, but many mistakes were repeated.Currently there is considerable difference between countries in their implementation ofthe Directives.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)The CAP is the single largest common policy in the EU accounting for almost 50% of thetotal budget. Its origins lie in the need to build food security after the destruction of theSecond World War and it has arguably achieved that goal. Its principle tool was theprovision of payments to support agricultural production in Europe to and to protect

European producers on the global market. The impacts on biodiversity of paying farmersto produce or latterly to not produce are well documented. As increasingly intensifiedmethods were employed to increase production, pollution and habitat change causedmassive declines on biodiversity. This is probably best highlighted by the indicators offarmland birds in Europe, which showed dramatic declines (Gregory et al 2005). Since itsinception the CAP has gone through several periods of review and reform, the most recent



32/81

3.1.5 Efforts at the local level

To date most of the actions to protect and sustainably use biodiversity have come from atop-down policy or legal perspective. For example the use of species can becomerestricted or areas can become protected. In most cases this centralised approached wasbased on the advice of scientific experts and the relevant statutory agencies or Ministries.However rarely were the considerations of users at the local level who may be completelyreliant on natural resources, taken into consideration. In developing countries thisapproach leads to the marginalisation of rural communities and exacerbates poverty.

Individuals who are exploiting natural resources are motivated primarily by the need tosupport and enhance their livelihood within the social and cultural contexts. Thereforeeconomic considerations usually come first and are shaped by both the relevant regulatoryframework and the current environmental conditions. A balance between local economicsand central regulation can greatly affect the cost-effectiveness of conservationmanagement, and hence its socio-economic sustainability. Protection of areas, habitatsand species may be defied at great enforcement cost if the loss of local opportunity cost istoo great (Hutton & Dixon 2000, Adams et al. 2004). Rather than regulatory constraintthat creates economic loss, it may be better to deliver or enable incentives for preservingecological services, non-consumptive use (e.g. eco-tourism) or limited extractive use(Inamdar et al. 1999, Getz et al. 1999). Despite the success of protecting species andreserves for maintaining biodiversity (as species inventory) at national levels, restorationefforts to reverse continuing rapid loss at local level (e.g. Thomas et al. 2004) are mostlikely to benefit from incentives.

Centrally directed agri-environment schemes, based on recent changes in CommonAgricultural Policy, can create much economic incentive to conserve biodiversity. Publicfunding (taxation) might be expected for ecological services from which all benefit, butmust compete with electorally attractive funding of security, healthcare, education, etc.Beyond an adequate species complement to ensure resilience, the prevention of floodsand refreshment of air, water and soil may not require high biodiversity. With so muchbiodiversity loss attributable to intensified land use, governance that encourages localgeneration of incentives for de-intensification may also become increasingly important(Kenward & Visi Garcia 2005).

In order to understand the processes that change ecosystems and biodiversity, and henceto affect those decisions most efficiently for long term sustainability, one needs tounderstand how individuals make the decisions that summate to the change. Crucialquestions for policymakers therefore concern the balance between constraints andincentives (sticks and carrots), as well as the balance of flexibility and other factors ifgovernance of ecosystem management is centrally directed (top-down) or locallyenabled (bottom-up).

3 2 Ecosyst em management regimes



33/81

indigenous peoples organization, private corporation, environmental NGO or a multi-stakeholder group) which makes certain decisions within mandated directions. Legallyprotected areas under government management are no guarantee against biodiversityloss. Hence, an important challenge for government management is to set aside

bureaucratic planning and instead allow experimentation based on monitoring andlocal ecological knowledge (Folke et al. 2005). This probably requires organizationalchange and leadership within governmental agencies (Danter et al 2000).

B. Multi-stakeholder management: Authority and accountability for management isshared in various ways among a number of parties, e.g. government agencies, localcommunities, NGOs, private landowners, industry representatives. In collaborativemanagement (co-management), formal authority for decisions rests with one party(often a governmental agency) but the agency is required to collaborate with other

stakeholders. In joint management , accountability for management rests jointly withvarious actors who sit on a management body with decision-making authority (e.g.this has been suggested as an approach for high seas marine areas beyond thejurisdiction of any one country). An important challenge for multi-stakeholdermanagement is coordinate multiple actors with multiple objectives in social networksacross sectors (horizontal collaboration) and organizational levels (verticalcollaboration). Leadership that emphasizes trust-building is important here (Hahn etal. 2006).

C. Local community management: Authority and accountability for management is withlocal communities, who collectively own or claim rights to the lands based ontraditional use and occupancy. The term local community is used to mean a sociallyand geographically networked group of people, not necessarily homogeneous, wholive close to or care for the natural/cultural resources in a protected area. Localcommunities may include individuals or groups with tenurial and customary rights ofuse or ownership in an area, and those who have a direct dependency on the area.Members of local communities who do not have tenurial rights may also be activecontributors to areas governance along with the relevant landowner(s). Management

is through a locally agreed form of governance, which may have roots in traditional,customary or ethnic practices. Negotiations with government may result inrecognition of specific rights, definition of broader accountabilities to society andpossibly a joint management arrangement. Challenges for local communitymanagement include empowerment, clarifying legal issues and establishing verticallinks for institutional and financial support.

D. Private management: Authority and accountability for management is with theprivate (non-government) owner or owners of the lands. In some cases, the owner

would be an individual or a group of individuals. In other cases, the owner might be aprivate for-profit corporation or a not-for-profit organization. Much of the benefits ofbiodiversity accrue to society at large whereas the costs (smaller harvests of cashcrops) fall upon the private landowner. Challenges include the provision of effectiveeconomic incentives and information so that private landowners can afford becomingthe good stewards for biodiversity that most of them want. Government agencies also



34/81

3.2.1 Property rights

In the property rights literature the notion of landowner is quite complex (e.g. (Becker1977), Bromley 1991, Ostrom & Schlager 1996). Indeed, what a person may own is not theland itself but a bundle of rights vis--vis other persons. These rights may be sharedamong different stakeholders and they may also vary for different ecosystem services. Forinstance, on private land, the landowner may have exclusive rights to timber but sharehunting rights with indigenous groups and share rights to pick mushrooms with everybody(open access). Hence, on the same land, timber may be managed under a private propertyrights regime and hunting under a multi-stakeholder regime. Hence, the concept oflandowner is theoretically awkward. The difference between an owner and a user orclaimant depends on which rights they have vis--vis other stakeholders (Table 3.3).

Table 3.3. Property rights may be distributed to different stakeholders in a cumulative way.(Modified from (Ostrom and Schlager 1996).)

Owner(may sell

rights)

Proprietor(may exclude

others)

Claimant(management

rights)

Autho-risedUser

Autho-rised

entrant

Access x x x x x

Withdrawal x x x x

Management x x x

Exclusion x x

Alienation x

For ecosystem management, the most important property rights issue is managementauthority/right. Several actors may have access and withdrawal rights but the contents ofthese rights (e.g. fishing gears or quotas) belong to management authority. Under privatemanagement regimes, management rights reside at the private landowner contingent uponregulations by governmental agencies. Other stakeholders have usually no managementauthority but may of course try to influence public policy. Under government managementregimes, many stakeholders may claim a share in management authority. Oftenstakeholder involvement is limited to consultation but sometimes management authority isshared (co-management). Different types of collaboration are discussed under 3.1.3



35/81

and experiences to develop a common framework of understanding and basis for jointaction {(Schusler et al. 2003). Hence, social learning integrates issues of knowledgegeneration, working out objectives, solving conflicts, and action.

The challenge is to promote a social learning process in the context of adaptivemanagement practices. Successful management is characterized by continuous testing,monitoring, and re-evaluation to enhance adaptive responses acknowledging the inherentuncertainty in complex systems. Management needs to adapt to new knowledge and buildthis into management plans rather than striving for optimization based on past records(Berkes et al. 2003). Forming a learning environment that accepts continuous testing andchanges requires leadership within management organizations (Danter et al. 2000) andcollaboration within social networks.

3.2.3 Type of collaboration among actorsCollaboration between government agencies and civil society has lately emerged as a keystrategy for governing social-ecological systems. In the US there are literally hundreds ofsuccess stories of collaboration, labelled ecosystem management, collaborativestewardship, community-based environmental protection, civic environmentalism, etc.(Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). The reason is simple: no organization or government hassufficient authority, knowledge and resources to implement management objectives oflarger ecosystems like watersheds (Imperial 2005). Due to their interdependence, nostakeholder can fulfil its objectives in isolation from actions of other stakeholders.Collaboration simply becomes necessary to build relationships and trust which is neededfor constructive conflict resolution. Or in the words of the range manager in ApplegateWatershed: We got to the point where we just had to sit down and start talking(Wondolleck & Yaffee 2000:7).

Public-private collaboration is ubiquitous for larger ecosystems where land ownershipgenerally is mixed. For areas under exclusive government management, there is littleincentive for government agencies to share the power they hold (Berkes 2002). Forprivately owned land, government agencies may influence or even regulate managementas nature reserves but private landowners have protested to what they perceive asinsensitive implementation, especially of Natura 2000 reserves (Young et al. 2005).

Several, if not most, state initiatives for collaborative natural resource management (co-management) are no real co-management, meaning formal sharing of managementauthority but rather some kind of multi-stakeholder consultation (Berkes 2002:302). Suchconsultation may however be of great value and involve deliberation, social learning,trust-building, and facilitate conflict resolution. A quite different management regime isjoint management in which management authority resides at a multi-stakeholder board.One example is the Laguna Lake in the Philippines: the governance wascompartmentalized and non-participatory before the authorities formed 33 RiverRehabilitation Councils (RRCs), which all included several stakeholders. The RRCs arecapable of making comprehensive and effective responses to declining trends addressingsocial as well as ecological drivers (Folke et al 2005:461).



36/81

drivers occur at a continuum of social and ecological scales, governance (responses) maybe more effective if they involve decision-makers (and action-takers) at multipleorganizational levels. Governance, to be effective, often needs to address a range ofdrivers and interactions of social and ecological systems, to match the reach and

interactions of those drivers. The existence of several actors, at various organizationallevels, managing the same natural resource, results in a redundancy in governance. This isgenerally criticized in policy analysis, although it has been defended in the managementof complex adaptive systems like ecosystems (Low et al. 2003), which require institutionalflexibility. An array of institutions at different organizational levels enhances the diversityof governance options (Hahn et al. 2006). This has been referred to as scale-matching (Lee1993), institutional fit (Folke et al. 1998); (Brown 2003), or multilayered or polycentricgovernance (Ostrom 1998); (McGinnis 2000).

3.2.4 Policy Communities and Bridging OrganizationsWhen analyzing governance processes in dynamic social networks we should be carefulwith how we perceive stakeholder collaboration: are there groups (agencies, companies,organizations) collaborating or individuals who somehow represent these groups butwithout contracts and formal agreements? Are the multilevel networks formalized or havethey emerged and self-organized, maybe in response to rigid governmental structures? Thelatter has been referred to as new governance by Lee (2003) who defines it as apolycentric form of social coordination in which actions are coordinated voluntarily by

individuals and organizations with self-organizing and self-enforcing capabilities.

The leadership of key persons developing policy communities (networks) for ecosystemsmanagement has been highlighted by Olsson et al (2004). A policy community has beendefined as a diverse network of individuals representing public and private organizationsgenerally associated with the formation and implementations of policy in a given resourcearea (Shannon 1998). Policy communities are similar to epistemic communities (Haas 1992)but not with the same focus on scientific consensus.

Policy communities and related forms of collaboration do not emerge automatically; someleadership is required. In a synthesis of 18 sub-global assessments within the MillenniumEcosystem Assessment (MEA), Malayang et al (2006) found a strong correlation betweenthe number of stakeholder groups collaborating and the effectiveness of response. Inseveral of the most effective responses a bridging organization was involved. A bridgingorganization provides an arena for trust-build

Documents

Report on Governance Types and Ecosystem Management Characteristics CTMIUCN